Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 10

December 10

Category:Entertainment in Pakistan

Very few countries have an entertainment category. They are little more than an extra tier to click through in the culture categories, and this one is completely empty. Delete CalJW 23:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Rhollenton 23:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:English organisations

See also the two nominations below. While there is some sense in separating out Scottish and Welsh organisations, trying to separate English ones from British ones will achieve nothing but to create inconsistency in categorisation and confusion amongst users. Delete Rhollenton 23:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. David | Talk 23:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Companies of England

Not a good idea. England is not a separate economy and it is not legally possible for a company to be incorporated "in England". This feeble start merely threatens to create confusion in Category:Companies of the United Kingdom, which is complex enough as it is. Delete Rhollenton 23:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. David | Talk 23:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Learned societies of England

Not a good idea. Learned societies do not operate at an England only level. Only one article has been moved from Category:Learned societies of the United Kingdom but that is one too many. Delete Rhollenton 23:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The one entry is a London-based society and not really an England-based one anyway. I suspect someone's trying to make a political point in creating separate categories for England. David | Talk 23:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Walt Disney Company motion picture

Misnamed; redundant; Category:Disney films already exists. tregoweth 23:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Duplicate. Rhollenton 23:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Irish-Scots

Was nominated on WP:AFD by User:130.159.254.2 and User:PatGallacher. Articles for Deletion is not the place to discuss Categories for deletion. I am moving the deletion discussion for the category here. Abstain. — JIP | Talk 20:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Local councils of the United Kingdom to Category:Local authorities of the United Kingdom

It's perhaps a small issue but it would be more technically accurate to refer to institutions of government rather than councils. The Metropolitan Board of Works was a local authority but not a council, for instance. The elected local bodies in Scotland are technically 'corporations' and perhaps one could argue that Trades Councils are also 'local councils'. David | Talk 18:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, move. I'm not sure where you get that bit about Scottish corporations - the current local authorities are certainly Councils (whilst of course England used to have local corporations). Morwen - Talk 19:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only that all the Scots I've ever met talked of "Glasgow Corporation". David | Talk 19:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support move. --G Rutter 22:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support The term "local authority" is widely used. Rhollenton 22:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pseudoscience to Category:Science of Questionable Validity

Category is misleading and has fueled a revert war on Aetherometry Hackwrench 18:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. "Pseudoscience" is a failry-well defined description of certain theories. If there is an edit conflict at an article perhaps this isn't the correct category for that one article, or perhaps there are other dispute resolutions available. -Willmcw 21:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The Pseudoscience article gives a good discussion on how and why some topics are so classified and the second paragraph of Aetherometry (at the time of writing) clearly shows why it should be classified as such ("aetherometry is not supported by scientific consensus, being in conflict with established theories such as relativity", etc ). --G Rutter 22:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is a specific area. All the latest legitimate research is of "Questionable Validity". And that phrase would invite pov edits concerning creationism. Rhollenton 22:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:London railway stations to Category:Railway stations in London

To bring the category name into line with the other categories, e.g. Category:Railway stations in Berkshire. Our Phellap 18:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rhollenton 22:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Histories of cities in the United States

Category:Atlanta history --> Category:History of Atlanta, Georgia
Category:Baltimore history --> Category:History of Baltimore, Maryland
Category:Boston history --> Category:History of Boston, Massachusetts
Category:Chicago history --> Category:History of Chicago, Illinois
Category:Cleveland history --> Category:History of Cleveland, Ohio
Category:Detroit history --> Category:History of Detroit, Michigan
Category:Los Angeles history --> Category:History of Los Angeles, California
Category:Nashville history --> Category:History of Nashville, Tennessee
Category:New York City history --> Category:History of New York City
Category:San Diego history --> Category:History of San Diego, California
Category:San Francisco history --> Category:History of San Francisco, California
Category:Seattle history --> Category:History of Seattle, Washington
Category:Washington, D.C. history --> Category:History of Washington, D.C.
Rename all. Wiki-standard is "History of Foo" and in case of American cities "City, state". See: Category:History by country. - Darwinek 16:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Best to use the same form for the U.S. Rhollenton 22:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support but is it really necessary to add the state for all the cities? Surely "History of Los Angeles" is sufficient? The state should only be used if there are two cities of the same name. Our Phellap 23:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British far-right

Delete The far right would not self-describe themselves as such. We cannot have Categories that are unclear and whose usual use is perjorative - we must be mindful of WP:NPOV. Wizzy…☎ 08:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with this category name is that it's very vague. What does 'far right' mean? Most of the articles currently in there refer to the nether regions between the right-most extreme of the Conservative Party and the openly fascist organisations. Perhaps a renaming to Category:British political organisations to the right of the Conservative Party. David | Talk 19:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category has been set up by a Left-winger who has been busy, with another, attacking those whom, in their opinion, are "far-right". But this is only their OPINION, something which Wikipedia are opposed to in general. Frankly it is an absolute scandal that the people and groups in this category are hear. Denis Walker is a lay preacher in the Methodist Church and a most devout Christian. Thousands of members, including numerous members of both Houses of Parliament, have passed through the Conservative Monday Club (its correct full name) and it is a monstrous slur upon those mainstream conservatives. The clear purpose of the individual who set up this category is to slur every organisation, and so all its members, and the individuals, as some sort of neo-Nazis, as that is the general term the broad Left use. If this is permitted to stand it will be a massive disgrace to Wikipedia. Robert I 20:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would not object to the page being renamed, if such is the general consensus. CJCurrie 20:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As you've suggested David, the problem is what to call those to the right of the Conservative Party (or on the "hard right" of the party). The reason I created the category is I came across one person who is the "leader" of the Monday Club (no longer associated with the Conservatives) and didn't know how to categorise him. Category:British conservatives suggests a party affiliation and Category:British political organisations to the right of the Conservative Party is quite long. Homey 20:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, if everyone from The Guardian to The Telegraph describes the Monday Club as being "far right" it would seem to be an objective description.Homey 21:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wide open to misuse. Rhollenton 22:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteobvious attempt to demonise groups and people. The views of four or five left-wing journalists do not constitute fact, wherever they are printed. It is ludicrous to to refer to the Conservative Monday Club, which in 1990 had 36 members of parliament and an equal number of Peers as members, far right and non-conservative. I am a former member and am very offended. 213.122.43.210 08:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A revised renaming suggestion. After consulting Barberis, McHugh and Tyldesley's "Encyclopaedia of British and Irish Political Organisations", I find they put such groups in a category called "Libertarian and non-authoritarian right". Why not Category:Libertarian and non-authoritarian right wing politics of the United Kingdom? It is long but there are others of similar length. David | Talk 23:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename obviously necessary. Rhollenton 22:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British visitor attractions by locality to Category:Visitor attractions in the United Kingdom by locality

Most of the categories for buildings etc use "of the United Kingdom" as does Category:Visitor attractions in the United Kingdom.

Rename Rhollenton 02:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. David | Talk 19:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Famous Hispanic Americans to Category:Hispanic Americans

Redundant, not to mention the qualifier "Famous" is ill-defined. —BorgHunter (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or if empty, delete. Rhollenton 02:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New Zealand coastline → Category:Coastline of New Zealand

rename as per naming conventions. Grutness...wha? 06:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per nominator. Rhollenton 22:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]